Hi Guys,
I finished the book "Big Fleet Actions" by Eric Grove. In the section on the
battle of the Philippine Sea, it stated that the Japanesse considered all
their guns dual prupose. They even had special "incendiary shrapnel shells for
big guns up to 18.1in caliber" for
anti-aircraft use!
This is in direct contradiction of the Full Thrust Rules, page 17. One way to
correct the rulses is to allow all beam to fire as PDS, but they only get 1d6
at short range, even if it is a Class 20 beam.
I've read that the AA rounds were notorious for wear and tear on the guns. To
the point that one's guns could be disabled in one action.
If you want to include a rule for possible disabling of class 2's and above
after using as AA's, I'd consider the varient.
However, we are not exactly mimicing one front in one particular war. Let's
not assume exact parity. This is not a 'correction'.
The_Beast
"Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> on 03/11/99 06:37:21 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: Full Thrust Mailing List <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: 18.1" Anti-Aircraft Guns!!!
Hi Guys,
I finished the book "Big Fleet Actions" by Eric Grove. In the section on the
battle of the Philippine Sea, it stated that the Japanesse considered all
their guns dual prupose. They even had special "incendiary shrapnel shells for
big guns up to 18.1in caliber" for
anti-aircraft use!
This is in direct contradiction of the Full Thrust Rules, page 17. One way to
correct the rulses is to allow all beam to fire as PDS, but they only get 1d6
at short range, even if it is a Class 20 beam.
IAS
> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> Hi Guys,
One
> way to correct the rulses is to allow all beam to fire as PDS, but
True enough, but IIRC, they (the 18.1" guns) didn't knock down a single
airplane. All those big guns could do is point in the general direction and
hope the scattershot hit something- the guns were simply too big and
slow
to accurately track a fast moving aircraft. Using anti-ship weapons
against
small craft just isn't a very good idea- its all in the trade-off (big
heavy weapon that can smash armor and hull, or a small light gun that can
traverse quickly and can track fast craft- well, sorta : )
Randall:
***
True enough, but IIRC, they (the 18.1" guns) didn't knock down a single
airplane. All those big guns could do is point in the general direction and
hope the scattershot hit something- the guns were simply too big and
slow to accurately track a fast moving aircraft.
***
Agreed, again. Perhaps a die roll to indicate if a hit on the squadron and
include a possible 'barrel' failure. If a hit, a second roll to determine how
many fighters boil away.
Perhaps 1 weopen inoperable, 6 hit on squadron. Could be adjusted, say on 5
both hit AND weopen corroded. I do lousy trying to crunch numbers. Obviously,
the idea is to work towards play balance.
I see this also, possibly, being fleet-specific. Fleets defending more
against fighters would be more likely to have than those flying lots of 'em.
I'd like to make the possibility of self-damage increasing with each
shot, but that would be a nasty complication.
The_Beast
The big guns used for anti-aircraft in WW II didn't fire any sort of
scatter shot at all. They were aimed ahead of the incoming torpedo planes to
splash in the water and the water splash would either knock the aircraft down,
or cause it to swerve during its torpedo attack, negating any success. The
Japanese use cruiser and BB main batteries in this manner. To the best of my
knowledge we never did.
Well, this will certainly send me running back to the books. I could have
sworn there were alternate rounds available later in the war.
I've been delirious before...
The_Beast
ScottSaylo@aol.com on 03/11/99 08:30:11 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: 18.1" Anti-Aircraft Guns!!!
The big guns used for anti-aircraft in WW II didn't fire any sort of
scatter shot at all. They were aimed ahead of the incoming torpedo planes to
splash in the water and the water splash would either knock the aircraft down,
or cause it to swerve during its torpedo attack, negating any success. The
Japanese use cruiser and BB main batteries in this manner. To the best of my
knowledge we never did.
> On 11 Mar 99, at 7:19, devans@uneb.edu wrote:
I'd consider it more than a 'variant'. Apart from the Kra'Vak I think most FT
battery weapons are considered 'energy casters' - there is no projectile
as such above the subatomic level. Quite how a weapon like that could fire a
form of shot that might damage it I'm not sure about.
> However, we are not exactly mimicing one front in one particular
Indeed, examine the original message...
> This is in direct contradiction of the Full Thrust Rules, page 17.
One
> way to correct the rulses is to allow all beam to fire as PDS, but
The rules are not in 'contradiction' as they are not trying to 'simulate'
anything approaching the same thing. The flavour text/ commentary might
but
no-one is 100% right all of the time :).
I've always been more of the opinion that 'big' batteries being used as
anti-
fighter weaponry was more down to focusing and target tracking problems as
much as anything to do with the 'method of attack'. If you work out your
angles of arc a fighter close in moving even vaguely could translate to an
object at typical 'ship combat' distance moving at what I believe Mel Brooks
described as 'ludicrous speed'.
TTFN
Jon
The problem with firing big "shotgun" rounds of burning material through the
bore is that it would scour away the rifling pretty fast. Rifled guns fired
only explosive and shrapnel rounds never cannister.
I read specifically in the Ballatine Book WW2 series of WW2 Leyte Gulf edition
that teh US battleships were firing AA rounds out of their main guns. If
anyone wants i may be able to dig up the specifics but I don't think they went
into any more detail than that.
Los
> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> The big guns used for anti-aircraft in WW II didn't fire any sort of
> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
You need to go back to Viet Nam for accounts of the 105s firing 'beehive'
(modern canister) rounds before much more is said.
Bye for now,
> At 2:40 PM -0800 3/11/99, Los wrote:
IIRC, Admiral Ugaki's diary ("Fading Victory," and worth reading for the
committed student of naval history (I collect first person accounts), he
commanded the 1st BB Div with Yamato and Musashi for a time as well as having
been on Yammamoto's staff) does mention this 'special' ammo. This isn't the
kind of special you want *your* kids to be, they never hit anything and chewed
up the barrels something fierce.
Very few sources mention 18.1" AA ammo trivia because they are little more
than, well, trivia. No effect at all.
The bigger guns on both sides did knock down a few planes with splashes by
firing into the water ahead of torpedo planes.
Please give me the info. I should think that 16" guns (which was maximum size
of American BB's) would have traversed too slowly and have insufficient
azimuth elevation to be useful for anti-air fire against anything but
torpedo attacks. But I am willing to find out differently.
The book is "Leyte Gulf" By Donald Macintyre and it's Book no.11 from
Ballantines Illustarted History of WW2.
You are misinterpreting how the shells work. They are not behive or cannister
rounds. They are Flak shells fuzed to burst at maximum range. Radar picks up a
big gaggle in bound and these things fire in their path ala first line of
defense. Once the planes are at mid range the 5" take over then the bofors and
20 mike mike at close range. They never had that great a success.
Remember you fire at something ten miles away slant range and you could loft
the shell pretty high, besides most Japanese air attacks did not take place at
high altitudes.
> ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> Please give me the info. I should think that 16" guns (which was
BEehive rounds also burned out the barrels within a few rounds. Not a real
debilitating thing either financially or labor wise, but to burn out 9 16:
naval gun barrels would cost a fortune and deprive the BB of it's main battery
entirely.
I just checked with a guy on the Military History Forum at AOL (whose libary I
would cheerfully steal at the slightest opportunity) and asked him about
allied use and he'd never heard of it, but hey I continue to do some research
I append his short note
<'ve posted info 2-3 times in the past 2 years on Yamato's san-shiki
"beehive" shells, but I never looked into AA rounds for our big guns. Like the
guy says, Yamato's use of them amounts to trivia, plus they ruined the
barrels, so they were a desperate option.>